BuzzerBeater Forums

Here's my take- What is the problem? If somebody creates Frankenballer, they should understand that he isn't gonna sell. Instead people could train all areas of their teams and wider ranges of skills per player. And perhaps this will be the leveller that everyone has been crying for- teams shouldn't be on top forever. If a team gets top heavy they should have to rebuild after a few years. Unfortunately I think most people don't have the desire to get good then fall and rebuild. They will most likely just quit, which is a shame. The celtics were great, then miserable, then great again, then miserable again, and now they are back near the top. Why shouldn't this happen in this game?

Because what you are talking about has nothing to do with the point at hand.

1)Fanesi or the Latvian dude aren't Frankenballer..they are the best players in the game in their positions. If the game is structured in a way that the best players are considered more harm than good to their team, then I think we have a problem.
2)Owners can train all areas of their team, but it still makes no sense that the best players will end up dying because nobody will want them. Do you think it's reasonable that the best teams in the game are not able to afford the best players? Since you bring up the NBA (which I hate doing because IMO it makes no sense to compare a BB relaity with a real world reality), it's as if LeBron James or Tim Duncan were left without a team because no team is willing to pay their salary. Not an ideal situation right?
3)The problem is not a team rebuilding..that really has nothing to do with the issue. The best teams won't even think about buying these players (because they know they will go bankrupt in a few weeks). In fact, NOBODY will want these players, because nobody, except maybe some farm teams for a short time (and where is the fun in that?) will want them.

Do you understand what I am saying? The problem is not in the teams, it's in the players...in the near future, hundreds of players (the best ones in the game) who nobody will want.

Then maybe the transfer market will really start to settle down with very tight parameters for buying/selling.

The center market seems to find its boundaries the quickest and maybe the 100-120k players will fetch the most then a few managers will splash out more for the really top guys (assuming the cost of purchase is much lower) and so on.
It might really have to be a precise market so not to overtrain in order to get the best sale price.

We havent reached that point with guards yet but will surely not be far off. But if you can pick up PG/SG/SF for 250-300k then for sure I cant see anyone spending more than 150-175k on a Centre.

There are teams making far more than I but again I think that when building a squad (although i can only speak for myself) then a breakdown into 10 players and paying 1 guy 40% of your outgoings (inc. what you pay for staff) is seemingly a bit high!!

Last edited by Superfly Guy at 5/13/2009 7:21:31 AM

So if you aren't able to afford (or are not willing to afford) these 200k players now, you definitely won't want any of these guys come next year, and even worse, in the following seasons. And it you don't want them, who will?
Who is the richest team in BB? Tòròòò maybe? Will he want them? I don't know...and even if he will, he sure as hell won't want more than one..and where will the others end up?

I'm very curious to see who will end up buying the latvian dude..

Let me ask a question to the general public...is there ANYBODY out there who is willing to buy, now or in the near future, a 300k salary guy?

I am sure that I am no longer the richest, but I would agree with Superfly, I could not see adding any players with above $150k salaries. The only teams that would likely ever by these $300k freaks would be clubs saving up for a short playoff run or important cup/bbb games. Even if these guys sell for $1k, the salary hit for a season would be too much if you cared about not ruining your team.

So if you aren't able to afford (or are not willing to afford) these 200k players now, you definitely won't want any of these guys come next year, and even worse, in the following seasons. And it you don't want them, who will?
Who is the richest team in BB? Tòròòò maybe? Will he want them? I don't know...and even if he will, he sure as hell won't want more than one..and where will the others end up?

I'm very curious to see who will end up buying the latvian dude..

Let me ask a question to the general public...is there ANYBODY out there who is willing to buy, now or in the near future, a 300k salary guy?

I am sure that I am no longer the richest, but I would agree with Superfly, I could not see adding any players with above $150k salaries. The only teams that would likely ever by these $300k freaks would be clubs saving up for a short playoff run or important cup/bbb games. Even if these guys sell for $1k, the salary hit for a season would be too much if you cared about not ruining your team.

Exactly.

And there's the problem: the best players aren't the best anymore, they are freaks (and your definition is absolutely accurante IMO: any player that can bankrupt an entire team in a couple of weeks is absolutely a freak).
I'm curious to know if the BBs think that this evolution, like in HT, is inevitable, or if something can be done to make sure that the best players are, in fact, the players everyone would want to have, as opposed to the ones everyone wants to avoid.

apparently, as in HT, salary optimization is going to become more important at the highest levels of the game. "the best" will not be the most expensive, but the ones with the best performance at still tolerable cost. not sure this is a bad development, although it may not be very realistic as you point out. but what could be an alternative?

a more worrying aspect of this might be an additional incentive to "hoard-and-rally", which probably won't get as bad as people relegating on purpose, but still I can see contenders for an important title or a promotion performing a bit below their potential for a season or two in order to save on team salary, then make a push for which they are willing to take temporary losses on "freaks". this is a bit annoying since I at least find the jostling for sustainable progress more pleasing, but again, I don't see what can or should be done against it. and taking somdetsfinest's Celtics example, this even has some realism.

I agree with you, and I'm not sure there is an alternative. It's just a bit sad that in the end, the players with the highest skills won't be the ones that everyone is trying to get there hands on, and those lucky owners who have them won't sell them unless an unbelievable offers comes around.

I am by far not good enought to buy these players. But I totally agree with you. Now the players that only have 3 high skills are not the most wanted anymore because their high salary. Now the time came to invest in multi skilled players that are trained on many skills (like 7 times a 14). Then they are cheaper in salary and more effective in the games.

And all the players with a monster salary will get selled to teams anyway, look at HT. The players with the high salary go to farm teams or get sold every two weeks. That's what happen and they still stay in the game (don't retire), but just get less popular and are not getting sold for a lot of money.

So I don't think the salary should be lowered. To be a good team you need to think about the multi skilled players with "low" salary. I'm happy I don't have to deal with these problems yet...

It's just a bit sad that in the end, the players with the highest skills won't be the ones that everyone is trying to get there hands on

True, a bit disappointing that this issue will be here like it was in HT (isn't HT making changes to reduce this though?), but it's far from the biggest issue.

Though, it'll be important for top teams to avoid the temptation of buying these players if they want to do well in the long run. I bet a few of these centers will cause some turnover at the top which maybe isn't such a bad thing to happen.

As to teams laying low and saving up, not sure I can see that becoming a major problem like it is in HT. Still pays to be a winning team, and laying low will just risk a drop to a lower division and noticeably lower revenue streams.

If anything I'm seeing some teams do really well going the other way and adding more decent players for depth rather then a handful of high priced players and weaker backups.

IMO the salary formula should be lowered for the high skills

a player like ikstens is not a freak, his higher skill is only a 17
i think a well trained player should never have an unaffordable salary